PD Smith

Saying the world

Times Lit­er­ary Sup­ple­ment, Jan­u­ary 12, 2001

Five Por­traits: Moder­ni­ty and the Imag­i­na­tion in Twen­ti­eth-Cen­tu­ry Ger­man Writ­ing, by Michael André Bern­stein (North­west­ern Uni­ver­si­ty Press), 150pp. ISBN 0–8101-1774–6

By PD Smith

It is always wel­come to have a new book that reach­es out beyond the aca­d­e­m­ic field of Ger­man stud­ies, and encour­ages a wider read­er­ship to engage with the work of Ger­man-lan­guage writ­ers. Michael André Bernstein’s Five Por­traits does just this. He choos­es five writ­ers, only two of whom — Mar­tin Hei­deg­ger and Wal­ter Ben­jamin — were actu­al­ly Ger­man nation­als. Robert Musil and Rain­er Maria Rilke were born in what was then the Aus­tro-Hun­gar­i­an Empire and Paul Celan was Roman­ian.

As well as the Ger­man lan­guage, what unites these fig­ures — a philoso­pher, a lit­er­ary-cul­tur­al the­o­rist, a nov­el­ist, and two poets — is their cen­tral­i­ty to the mod­ernist project. All strove to cre­ate what Bern­stein rather grandiose­ly terms the “mod­ernist mas­ter­piece”, a sin­gle great work that was to be the sum­ma and expres­sion of both its cre­ator-genius and the cul­ture that nur­tured it. Inspired by the exam­ples of Balzac and Mal­lar­mé, the mod­ernist arte­fact became a God-like act of cre­ation, an attempt to re-estab­lish a lost onto­log­i­cal uni­ty expressed in an Adam­ic lan­guage.

Accord­ing to Bern­stein, this impos­si­ble goal embod­ies three prin­ci­pals: the mod­ernist mas­ter­piece must be uni­ver­sal in its vision of human nature; it should be dif­fi­cult, echo­ing Joyce’s remark (of Finnegans Wake) that “I’ve put in so many enig­mas and puz­zles that it will keep the pro­fes­sors busy for cen­turies argu­ing over what I meant”; and, final­ly, it must be redemp­tive, giv­ing val­ue to human exis­tence in a sec­u­lar, tech­nol­o­gized cul­ture. Of course, as with all tax­onomies this fails to do jus­tice to real­i­ty in all its nuanced com­plex­i­ty, and Bernstein’s brief intro­duc­tion leaves one wish­ing for a fuller dis­cus­sion of the the­o­ret­i­cal issues. Nev­er­the­less, these five essays (writ­ten orig­i­nal­ly for the New Repub­lic) rep­re­sent an admirable attempt to engage with the work of com­plex thinkers.

One of the themes that Bern­stein explores most suc­cess­ful­ly is the “cult of inward­ness” in the mod­ern imag­i­na­tion. Rilke’s trans­mu­ta­tion of real­i­ty into “eine Hand voll Innres” (a hand full of inward­ness) is an attempt at “say­ing” the world that finds a par­al­lel in Eliot’s lines from the Four Quar­tets: “the end of all our explor­ing / Will be to arrive where we start­ed / And to know the place for the first time.”

Yet as Bern­stein sug­gests, this poet­ic inte­ri­or­i­ty, which promis­es the read­er access to some high­er order of real­i­ty, has its polit­i­cal cor­rel­a­tive in the dic­ta­tor: “What Hitler called the Führerprinzip, the right of the supe­ri­or being to the unques­tion­ing obe­di­ence of oth­ers, is depen­dent on a cul­tur­al­ly shared mythol­o­giza­tion of the genius’s unique insight, and its charis­mat­ic pow­er is inex­tri­ca­bly bound up with the his­to­ry of mod­ernism itself.” In his dis­cus­sion of Musil’s great unfin­ished nov­el The Man With­out Qual­i­ties, Bern­stein detects “a sin­is­ter par­o­dy of Rilkean inward­ness” in Moos­brug­ger, the psy­cho­path­ic mur­der­er. Moosbrugger’s inabil­i­ty to dis­tin­guish between self and world is patho­log­i­cal. But for Rilke this offers a source of vision­ary insight into the con­nect­ed­ness of inner and out­er real­i­ties: “sub­jec­tiv­i­ty became the great­est prize of his objec­tiv­i­ty.”

The essay on Hei­deg­ger address­es the ques­tion as to whether it mat­ters “what sort of man or woman pro­duced the works that com­pel our atten­tion”. Here Bernstein’s method of com­bin­ing bio­graph­i­cal, cul­tur­al and crit­i­cal ele­ments is par­tic­u­lar­ly suc­cess­ful. He takes issue with Richard Rorty’s attempt to sep­a­rate the Black For­est philosopher’s pol­i­tics (“for a while at least, a con­vinced Nazi”) from his intel­lec­tu­al achieve­ment. Bern­stein right­ly points out that Hei­deg­ger him­self con­sid­ered think­ing to be not just “one aca­d­e­m­ic dis­ci­pline among many — it is ‘the basic occur­rence of Dasein’ and as such is insep­a­ra­ble from the fun­da­men­tal ques­tion of how to live”. His con­clu­sion is that although noth­ing in the philosopher’s thought was derived from Nazism, there are many dis­turb­ing par­al­lels. Here as else­where Bernstein’s analy­sis is con­cise yet pen­e­trat­ing, argu­ing that Heidegger’s search for a uni­ver­sal “pri­mor­dial” lan­guage in touch with authen­tic Being was a deeply flawed “mix­ture of provin­cial pietism and prein­dus­tri­al nos­tal­gia”.

Celan’s extra­or­di­nary poem “Todesfuge” (Death Fugue), pub­lished just after the Sec­ond World War, brought to an end the mod­ernist masterpiece’s claim to redeem the world. Bern­stein explores the back­ground to this sem­i­nal Shoah poem, argu­ing that: “Every line of ‘Death Fugue’ shows the daz­zling tech­ni­cal and imag­i­na­tive mas­tery of its author, and there is some­thing unset­tling about such sov­er­eign con­trol […] when the poem’s sub­ject is the utter help­less­ness of the Shoah’s vic­tims.” The fact that it is a supreme exam­ple of the mod­ernist mas­ter­piece makes it “moral­ly inad­mis­si­ble”. It marks a water­shed after which post­mod­ernism con­scious­ly sub­verts the mod­ernist ideals of redemp­tion and uni­ver­sal­i­ty. With these aspi­ra­tions, the faith in the vision­ary indi­vid­ual is also lost: the cre­ator-genius is dead. After the con­cen­tra­tion camps, writ­ers and intel­lec­tu­als can only offer, in Celan’s words, a “radi­ance that will not com­fort”.

[nb. this may dif­fer slight­ly from the pub­lished ver­sion]